Recently while in Vegas I encountered a wide varience in payoff structures for the various events I played.I would really like to see TDA do a better job in this area.In the main we would need to take into account the following:1) Entry Fee2) Number of entries-----------Almost every one does an ok job for shorter events, BUT-----------What about events with long structures and deep stacks?The Aria event (125) is such an event and gives results wherea player can play for 8 or 9 hours Cash and basically only get entry fee backwhile first place will be over $2000. Obviously not a good result for theplayers not in first place

Larry: NOT speaking for the TDA, but strictly as a personal opinion, I don't think the TDA should get into the event payoff area. There are enough problems with just the "Rules of the Game". Unfortunately, I was not able to attend the recent concluded TDA Summit so I don't know if this topic was discussed.

There are many different reasons for having events structured as they are. US Events are all over the place, mostly dependent (in my opinion) on house preferences, player preferences, geographical preferences and on and on and on.

In fact, I doubt very much if any attempt to "standardize" event payouts would be successful. Part of the reason I say this is that I had an opportunity recently to play a tournament at a poker room in a mid-west USA casino/dog track. This particular room has a tournament rule that a player who exposes his/her hole cards, regardless of intent, has a dead hand PERIOD. This is in direct opposition to TDA Rule 42. When I later talked to the card room manager, he told me this rule was to stop collusion and would continue to be enforced as is.

In my experience, Las Vegas Event Structures are intended to achieve a balance between player desires, house needs (aka, PROFIT), local competition and so forth.

So, while it would be nice to have everyone using the same pay structure, I just don't think it would be practical and I don't see the TDA getting into this area unless there is at least a 90% acceptance of TDA members. Again, this is my personal opinion and should not in any way be construed as coming from the TDA.

I would have to echo Chet's response but bring to the discussion another matter directly correlated to payout structures.

I am involved in the Amateur poker scene, and flattened out payout structures are the norm, but these payout structures do not serve professional players due to their poor Return on Investment (ROI), they do however, offer favourable and appealing structures to the amateur & casual players. There does seem to be a trend for many TD's to lean nowadays to favour more flattened out structures, but we must still retain a blend of top heavy and flat payout structures in offer to offer up different games for players.

I would certainly not be resistant to the TDA becoming involved in Payout Structures but I cannot see it happening, as their are so many varying requirements, demands and favoured structures out there that to attempt to simplify them I feel would be detrimental to the game as a whole. It would be like asking United Airlines and British Airways to have the same prices, with the same meals and service I feel.

Stuart: You get meals AND service on British Air? Only "meals" I can remember getting on a US Air Carrier in the last 4-5 years is a lousy miniature bag of peanuts or Chex Mix. MAYBE a whole can of soda, but most of the time all they want to give you is a tiny plastic cup that would be better used as a specimen cup in the Doctors Office ;D

I agree with the TDA passing on the standardization of payouts. That is to much a TD's personal assessment of the intent of the tournament. In my tournaments we pay the top 10% in a straight line progression. We have a freeroll once a year in which we spread it out a long way with a moderate 20% for the winner to have as many people as possible take some cash home.The TD must understand the type of player he is attracting and adjust accordingly.

Chet, along with being hilarious, is right. Geographically players tend to swing one way or another. I moved form the West of Canada where our structures were flat and paid more like 15% of the field, to the East where I was surprised to see that the players pushed for more top heavy tournaments. Sometimes these pay less than 10% of the field. What amazed me most was that usually when you have top heavy events they are catered to stronger play. The play I find on the East coast is 5 years behind where it is on the West. The TDA, being a worldwide organization, will almost never have cohesion on payout structure. However I would be interested to see some thers post their structures and the thought process behind them.

We pay top 10%, rounded up, with a minimum of 3 pots being paid. We recently changed our structure to a slightly flatter structure, while still paying 1st enough to make it worth his/her time. Ideally, I believe it is in the best interest of the casino (at least our room) if players chop the tournament early, to save on staffing and make more room for live games. What we saw happen with the top heavy payouts was that we'd have 1 or 2 holdouts just because they saw that top spot being so high. With the flatter payouts and the jump from 3rd to 1st not being as sharp (it used to be a very sharp jump) we've seen more players willing to chop, especially 5 ways where they are getting around 3rd place money. The other thought process is that more money in more players hands will allow more players to jump into live games or the next tournament.

I agree with what Brian is saying. If you can make your structure pay out favour a chop then go for it. It may seem less favourable for the players but we are running a business here. In many structures I've done I always try to have the 5 way chop be a little better than 3rd. 4-way should be nearly 2nd, and a 3-way be better than second rather than right on the 2nd place payout. Most players will figure out their equity in the chop and go for it, especially if the chips are relatively even.